Is Q Enough?

Upon reflecting on my previous post, and after reading Steven's comments I think it is necessary to consider my question about Q a little further. Steven's opinion is that there has to be some written element to Q, which he sites good evidence for. I previously suggested that Q is an oral source. Considering Steven's opinion and my own suggestion, I am led to wonder if the concept of Q is flexible enough to answer the question of textual origination. Let me explain.

First, when looking at the Synoptics, we see 3 different gospels with some similarities, and as Steven pointed out, some more obvious than others. If I am correct about Q, it serves as an explanation of how these similarities got into 3 different gospels. Hypothetically, Q is a collection of recorded sayings that originated before any of the 3 Synoptics. It seems for many scholars that this is an easy enough explanation.

I will now turn to Mark to explain why this is much more complex than it seems. First of all, Mark seems to be a fantastic storyteller who is able to embrace a number of audiences. At this point I am forced to look at Mark's gospel as something flowing from a storyteller's mouth into the listener's ears rather than from an author's pen into a reader's eyes. Bear with me. It is widely accepted that Mark is the earliest gospel, and in most theories used only Q as its source as well as being a source along with Q for Matthew and Luke. Again, my problem, we are talking about a storyteller rather than an author. If Mark is a storyteller it is plausible that his story woud originate from oral tradition. This is what led me to suggest an oral version of Q. When Luke and Matthew are brought into the picture, it is harder for an oral Q theory to hold up as Steven has pointed out. However, it does not cause oral Q to concede to written Q, and thus my original question returns. Is Q enough?

Most scholars want a written Q or an oral Q. One or the other. Along with this, most scholars want one source and they want to call it Q (although some scholars see no reason for any original source). I don't think Q is enough. To me, there has to be more. For example, Greco-Roman literature and culture should be considered a source used at least by Mark. I think Q has created a road block for further consideration. For most Q stands as a good explanation and the academy has spent years trying to figure out what is in Q and what Q really is when we have a considerable amount of other concrete, plausible sources that deserve our attention.

Oral Q?

Throughout my academic career I have always wondered about Q. To most scholars, Q is a hypothetical gospel used by Synoptic authors. Depending on what source hypothesis you might adhere to Q will hold different weight. I have always believed in the plausibility of the existence of Q, yet have always struggled with the capacity in which it functioned.

I recently read an article by Holly E. Hearon titled, "The Implications of Orality for Studies of Biblical Text. In the article Hearon identifies the problems caused by scholarship that has continued to focus primarily on the "written dimension of rhetorical culture." In a few instances she does this concerning Q and the Synoptic authors' use of Q and of each other. At this point Hearon recognizes the work of James Dunn. Dunn in looking at the differences in certain stories in the Synoptics feels that the oral nature of the culture allowed for different versions of the same story to be produced completely seperate from each other. The point Hearon is trying to make is that source hypotheses like the two-source hypothesis causes us to look at the as a written culture with authors borrowing pieces from other written sources, not as an oral culture where storytellers add their own twist on a version of the story already in their possesion.

So what does this mean for Q? In a primarily written culture Q stands as a hypothetical source full of random sayings. In an oral culture Q becomes more. Q becomes an outline used by performers, by storytellers. Textual scholarship should complete its shift towards orality by recognizing Q as such an outline. Instead of being known as "the sayings gospel," it should be known as "the story gospel."

The SBL/AAR Split

I'd just like to point anyone who is interested to the great conversation going on at April Deconick's (Forbidden Gospels) about the SBL/AAR split. Many people are bringing up many great issues. Among them is the the question of whether or not biblical scholars have lost (or ever had) the respect of other religious scholars. I would say that we aren't much different, and at many points our studies converge, but I'm interested to know what others think.

Note: I have no idea how to link within posts. I know....I know. Please find the Link to Professor Deconick's blog in my links section.

Hello

Well as you will all know from never hearing the name Nick Kiger before, I'm new to all of this. I've been reading many blogs about religious studies, and have found them all quite wonderful, so I thought I'd give this a shot myself. So I'm asking for advice from you experienced bloggers in the world of religious studies. How do I make this a worthwhile hobby? I'd like very much to add to these conversations that I so much love to read. I'd like to thank blogs such as Deinde and NT Gateway for all of the good reading. That's all for now. Bring on the advice!